Volume 4, Number 1, REFLECTIONS

Ó 2002 by the Society for Organiza-tional Learning and the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology.

66

‘‘I Don’t Have Time toThink!’’ versus the Artof Re�ective PracticeJoseph A. Raelin

‘‘Susan, you’re next. As you know, we �gure the Cadlink merger is going ahead. They expecttheir Wentworth localization unit to be merged with your marketing group. What do youthink?’’

‘‘No problem, Charlie,’’ Susan replied. ‘‘We can integrate them, no sweat.’’‘‘Wait a second,’’ Charlie said, looking a little uneasy. ‘‘I heard they use an entirely differ-

ent CRM model. Don’t you want to think about this a little?’’‘‘Charlie,’’ Susan insisted. ‘‘I’m working on a news release on the merger. I don’t have

time to think!’’

M anagers like Susan and Charlie live in a world of frenetic activity. Re�ective practiceis hardly possible or practical in this age of the busy corporate executive who is

socialized to be a person of action, not of re�ection. Action is required. Delaying decisionsis seen as a sign of weakness, even if the delay may subsequently produce a better deci-sion. CEOs want an answer rather than a question; they are looking for solutions ratherthan problems. Yet, is it possible that the frenetic activity of the executive is a drug forthe emptiness of our organizational souls, that constant action may merely serve as asubstitute for thought?

So society gives re�ection and its counterpart—listening—short shrift. We don’t seemto be interested in the whole story. We even perfect the art of interruption so that we canshow our ‘‘proactivity’’ and gain the boss’s attention. There was a time before instantreplay when humans had to get the whole message or it would be lost forever. We seemto be unwilling to perfect the art of public re�ection, in which we show a willingness toinquire about our own and our colleague’s assumptions and meanings.

What Is Re�ective Practice?Re�ective practice, as I de�ne it in this article, is the practice of periodically stepping backto ponder the meaning of what has recently transpired to ourselves and to others in ourimmediate environment. It illuminates what the self and others have experienced, pro-viding a basis for future action. In particular, it privileges the process of inquiry, leadingto an understanding of experiences that may have been overlooked in practice. In itspublic form, it is associated with learning dialogues. These types of discussions, ratherthan constituting an exchange of statements of viewpoints, bring to the surface—in thesafe presence of trusting peers—the social, political, and emotional data that arise fromdirect experience with one another. Often these data are precisely those that might beblocking operating effectiveness. Learning dialogues also are concerned with creating mu-tual caring relationships.

Re�ective practice tends to probe to a deeper level than trial-and-error experience. Ittypically is concerned with forms of learning that seek to inquire about the most funda-mental assumptions and premises behind our practices. It is thinking about our thinking.Consider that the brain, as a sophisticated information-processing organ, can handle some

Joseph A. RaelinThe Asa Knowles ChairNortheastern UniversityAuthorWork-Based Learning andCreating Leaderful Organizations(forthcoming)www2.bc.edu/ ; raelin/bookpage.html

REFLECTIONS, Volume 4, Number 1

”ID

on’t

Hav

eTi

me

toTh

ink!

”ve

rsus

the

Art

ofRe

�ect

ive

Prac

tice

wRA

ELIN

67

50,000 to 60,000 thoughts per day. Unfortunately, as weencounter problems in our work, we tend to go no furtherthan consulting our ‘‘solution database’’ (depicted in �gure1) to �nd an answer.1 Our solution database contains all thestandard answers and assumptions we have used in ourpast to solve our problems.

In thinking about thinking, we are actually able to re-�ect together about our solution databases and add to themor alter them entirely. In this way, we re�ect together withtrusted others in the midst of practice. Plato had relation-ships in mind when, in Apology, he quoted Socrates’s nowfamous phrase: ‘‘The unexamined life isn’t worth living.’’ This phrase has often beenmisinterpreted as a call for additional introspection. Although this might be useful, theactual meaning is that we need to include others in the examination of experience in ourlife. Plato’s idea resonated with Aristotle, who recognized that human beings are socialanimals whose good is bound up with the good of the polis. Underpinned by these Greekroots, the egalitarian tradition in Western thought has long since recognized that thedignity of human persons is achieved only in community with others.

So, re�ective practice, though recognizing the value of private re�ection, opens upfor public scrutiny our interpretations and evaluations of our plans and actions. We sub-ject our assumptions, be they personal or professional, to the review of others. We dothis not only before or after an event, but learn to inquire even in the heat of the moment.

Rationale for Re�ective PracticeRe�ection must be brought out in the open for many reasons:

1. At times, we are, unfortunately, unaware of our behavior and its consequences.To complicate matters, our unawareness occasionally does not allow us to be open tonew data or information that would help us learn from our actions. We may even beunaware that the questions we ask might be producing defensiveness in others, closingoff the possibility of generating new information, even new questions. Often, only throughthe support of and feedback from others in an open dialogue can we become receptive toalternate ways of reasoning and behaving.

For example, Claire, a research director at a pharmaceutical �rm, had advanced toher position after being mentored by the foremost biochemistry guru in the company. Hisapproach was to try to poke holes in every proposal on which Claire had been working.Now in management, she saw her role as ‘‘grilling’’ her subordinates, not only privatelybut in public during and after their research brie�ngs. She was surprised when three ofher subordinates requested a transfer out of her group, claiming that she was too muchof a perfectionist to work with. Why couldn’t they understand that she was just trying tobe helpful and that her interrogation at the end of the day always led to a better project?

2. There is an unfortunate gap between what many of us say we will do and whatwe actually do. We are simply guilty of deceiving ourselves that we can practice what wepreach, though what we preach may be very dif�cult to accomplish in particular organi-zational cultures. How many readers have submitted to the game called ‘‘Yes, but . . .’’with a boss? ‘‘Yes, but . . .’’ bosses typically start out by proclaiming that they have anopen-door policy. ‘‘If you ever have a problem or a question for me or about our operation,you should feel free to come to me at any time,’’ they proudly avow. A series of conver-sations with the boss ensue during the next several months and may go something likethis:

[One month later] ‘‘Boss, I would like to propose that we adopt the balanced scorecardapproach to measuring our outcomes.’’ ‘‘Yes, good idea, but we actually tried it 14 monthsago and it didn’t work. But keep those great ideas coming!’’

[Two months later] ‘‘Boss, rather than paying out so much overtime, what would you sayto hiring Tim Evans part-time to help us out. I know he’s available.’’ ‘‘Yes, that might work,but Tim didn’t get along well with Sara, so I think we best continue as we have been.’’

[Three months later] ‘‘Boss, I know the group can increase its ef�ciency if we purchaseand then receive some training in the software program, PROJ-ACT. I know a great supplier;

Figure 1 Our normalproblem-solving pattern

Volume 4, Number 1, REFLECTIONS

”ID

on’t

Hav

eTi

me

toTh

ink!

”ve

rsus

the

Art

ofRe

�ect

ive

Prac

tice

wRA

ELIN

68

they do a great job and can convert us in under two weeks.’’ ‘‘Yes, but Marcia proposed thatwe try out the exact same program, and it was voted down just before you joined us.’’

[Four months later] ‘‘Boss, what would you say to all of us going out to see the latestSpielberg �ick?’’ ‘‘Yes, he’s great, and his current movie has an important message for ourgroup, but you can’t force these social outings on people. We each have our own lives.’’

[Five months later] No more ideas are forthcoming. Case closed.

3. Most of us are biased in how we obtain information that, in turn, produces cognitive‘‘errors’’ in our perceptions of reality. Errors constitute such practices as collecting datasuper�cially, ignoring certain pieces of information, making assumptions about datarather than investigating them, or using self-con�rming reasoning. However, if we areinterested in improving our managerial practices, we have to become aware of these so-called errors. Such an awareness is extremely dif�cult to awaken without the involvementof peers who can detect the use of untested assumptions and raw biases.

In the game of professional baseball, some managers employ a so-called ‘‘platoon’’system in which they use certain left-handed players against right-handed pitchers, butreplace them for a right-handed batter when the pitcher happens to be left-handed. Thereason for platooning is that it is merely easier for batters to face opposite-handed pitchers.However, this general statistical rule breaks down at the level of the speci�c case, wheremore re�ective practice may be called for. Some batters, for example, do just as wellagainst same-sided as opposite-sided pitchers. Others seem to bat well against particularpitchers, regardless of their throwing arm. Some situations, such as a bunt, may call fora play that may not depend on the hand dominance of the batter.

4. Although intuition and past practices can give us very cogent clues in decipheringfuture situations, often the new situation presents itself in a different context. Prior so-lutions may not �t, even if the situations appear alike. We tend to look, however, for the

similarities between the situations rather than differences.This type of normal cognitive processing can play tricks onus. Even when we consult a repertoire of available re-sponses, we may not �nd one that �ts the new situation.Consider the business strategy of mergers and acquisitions(M&As). From most accounts, it appears that more oftenthan not M&As fail to generate the synergistic value ex-pected from the combined entities.

Take the case of Quaker Oats, which has recentlymerged with Pepsi Co. In 1994, nearly 10 years after the incredibly successful acquisitionof Gatorade, Quaker Oats completed a $1.7 billion merger with Snapple. Three years later,it had to unload Snapple for $300 million. Given their previous success with Gatorade andtheir preconceived sense of the cultural norms within the industry, it appears thatQuaker’s principals may have critically overestimated the more particular cultural differ-ences between the prospective partners. On one hand, Quaker was known for its highlyfocused, mass-marketing operating style, whereas Snapple was considered to be quirky,entrepreneurial, and distribution oriented. Was it possible that the principals may nothave suf�ciently re�ected on what Robert Thomas (2000) likes to refer to as ‘‘culturaldue diligence’’?

The Practicality of Re�ective Practice

Is re�ective practice possible or practical in this age of the busy corporate executive whois socialized to be the person of action, not of re�ection? In our turbulent global environ-ment, it appears almost de�nitional that we need managers who can inspire re�ection tothe extent of generating new ways of coping with change. A re�ective culture makes itpossible for people to constantly challenge without fear of retaliation. Yet, a culture thatpermits questioning of assumptions is dif�cult to tolerate because it requires that peoplein control lose their grip on the status quo.

In actuality, inspiring re�ective practice in an organization does not have to be anonerous task, even for top managers. Although they are, by de�nition, people of action,they are also people who, when given a hospitable environment, like to compare expe-

We need managers who can inspirere�ection to the extent ofgenerating new ways of copingwith change.

REFLECTIONS, Volume 4, Number 1

”ID

on’t

Hav

eTi

me

toTh

ink!

”ve

rsus

the

Art

ofRe

�ect

ive

Prac

tice

wRA

ELIN

69

riences and, moreover, to help one another. They may also crave the opportunity to sharetheir insights, questions, and even failures with others, if given a climate receptive to opendiscourse. Indeed, they might appreciate an opportunity to replay their plans and actionsin front of like-minded colleagues who are not assembled to take advantage politically oftheir faults, but who want to help. They realize that they, too, need the understanding ofothers.

Accordingly, there are some strategies that organizations might endorse to encouragemore widespread use of re�ective practice even in the face of unrelenting pressure foraction (Haggerty, 2001; Raelin, 2000).

w Re�ective actions—Just one person demonstrating the value of inquiry generates in-terest in re�ection among members of a team or work unit. A team may be introducedto re�ective activities and processes such as journals, postmeeting e-mail minutes,re�ective note taking, learning histories, and ‘‘stop and re�ect’’ or debrie�ng episodesheld during or at the end of meetings (Castleberg, 2001; Kleiner and Roth, 1997).

w Building communities—Individuals may be encouraged to network with fellow em-ployees who, though not necessarily in the same work unit, may have a shared in-terest in a craft or job. Other small groups, even dyads, could form for mentoring orsupport purposes, for sharing and testing ideas, or merely for feedback and exchangeon initiatives and performance.

w Process improvement—Although quality improvement approaches, such as total qual-ity management, may not critically probe to the deeper levels of re�ection alluded toearlier, they reinforce the value of learning from experience, whether before, during,or after the practice in question.

w Learning teams—Whether constituted to support individuals working on their ownprojects, in the form of work or of self-discovery, or to support task teams workingon meaningful action-learning projects, learning teams represent a vehicle to mergetheory and practice. Participants, with assistance from their peers and quali�ed fa-cilitators, use the learning team to help them make sense of their experiences in lightof relevant theory. They discuss not only the practical dilemmas arising from actionsin their work settings but also the application or misapplication of concepts and the-ories to these actions.

w Culture of learning—Re�ective practice tends to �ourish in learning and collaborativeenvironments. Senior managers have a particularly important role in modeling alearning orientation, in particular, a culture that values continuous discovery andexperimentation. Re�ective practice can become a wayof life when organizational members feel free to chal-lenge the governing values of their practice and wherestructures and standards can change to accommodatenew requirements.

The Skills of Re�ective Practice

Having considered some organizational strategies to orient�rms in the direction of re�ective practice, we now drilldown to the level of skill to identify speci�c practices,notwithstanding the basic skills of communication. Inparticular, beyond the contribution of active listeningcompetencies and the value of feedback, there are �veadvanced skills that, used together, can contribute to re-�ective discourse.

Although trained facilitators often introduce theseskills, other facilitating members of any work or learningteam can also initiate them. The model in �gure 2 showsthe �ve principal skills: being, speaking, disclosing, testing,and probing. They are also displayed in the sidebar, in-cluding their de�nitions, some prompting questions alongwith associated behaviors, and an example. I examinethem here in more detail.

Figure 2 The �veskills of re�ective practice

Volume 4, Number 1, REFLECTIONS

”ID

on’t

Hav

eTi

me

toTh

ink!

”ve

rsus

the

Art

ofRe

�ect

ive

Prac

tice

wRA

ELIN

70

Descriptions of the Re�ective Skills

BeingDe�nition

Creates a climate for re�ection in the group; asks that we experience or describe situations, evenour own involvement in them, without imputing meaning.Ask

What can I learn here?How am I acting to constrain what is possible?

BehaviorView with empathy and with open-hearted acceptance.View as strange, display deep interest and curiosity.Invite questions and comments.Acknowledge our own and others’ vulnerability.Consider positions as hypotheses to be tested.Pause, re�ect, contemplate.

Example‘‘It looks like we have pretty much endorsed the direct marketing approach for this advertising

campaign. As you know, I have pushed for it as well, but we all remember what happened on theDo-op project. I have to admit that it still feels right to me, but to be honest with you, I still havesome reservations. Do you think we should take one more look at this? I’m afraid I might have over-looked something.’’

SpeakingDe�nition

Calls for speaking with a collective voice to �nd collective meaning in the group. It attempts tocharacterize the state of the group at a given time.Ask

What can I say to help the group understand itself?What social practices is the group engaging in right now?What is emerging in our collective consciousness that I can articulate?

BehaviorSuggest group norms.Articulate meaning, such as by summoning an image.Be willing to bring out uncertainties and unfounded assumptions.

Example‘‘James, your concern left me with an image that seems to characterize our effort right now. It is

like we’re a cargo plane having to make our destination in Istanbul, but with one engine knockedout.’’

DisclosingDe�nition

Asks that members �nd and speak with their own voice in order to disclose their own doubts andassumptions and to voice their impatience and passion.

The skill of being is central and pervasive, cutting across the other skills, because itrepresents our presence and vulnerability in creating a re�ective climate. Recalling thatre�ection represents a stepping back to ponder meaning, the �rst re�ective skill is toexperience or, even more simply, to be. In accomplishing being, we try to experience anddescribe situations, even our own involvement in them, without imputing meaning tothem or without evaluating them. We learn to explain with others.

As the most unusual yet potentially powerful of the skills, the skill of being can placeus in a vulnerable state because we do not rely on defending ourselves against experience.The object is rather on opening up to experience and to our interpersonal environment.We engage in such practices as suspending certainty, externalizing our thoughts, andexploring the tension of the opposites. This produces a re�ective response that can becharacterized by a number of attributes (from Bell, 1998) that directly contrast to thedefensive posture:

w Instead of maintaining unrealistic standards, we set realistic expectations.w Instead of expressing trepidation, we display tolerance.w Instead of concentrating on self-expression, we listen.

REFLECTIONS, Volume 4, Number 1

”ID

on’t

Hav

eTi

me

toTh

ink!

”ve

rsus

the

Art

ofRe

�ect

ive

Prac

tice

wRA

ELIN

71

AskWhat am I holding back that needs to be aired?What might I say to help the group know me better?

BehaviorDisclose feelings at a given moment, based on what has transpired.Present a story to reveal the depth of experience.

Example‘‘I wasn’t planning on telling you about this. I know I have seemed distracted lately, and the way I

just dealt with Linda is a case in point. Well, frankly, I am having some marital problems. I’ve movedinto an apartment and can’t get my mind off my kids.’’

TestingDe�nition

Makes an open-ended query to the group to attempt to uncover new ways of thinking and behav-ing. It asks the group to consider its own process, including its norms, roles, and past actions.Ask

Are we helping each other right now?What can I ask to help us all focus on our process?

BehaviorAttempt to make a ‘‘meta-inquiry,’’ to focus on where the group is right now.Ask if the group would be willing to test some taken-for-granted assumptions.

Example‘‘I guess we’re at an impasse. In fact, it looks like we’re split right down the middle on this one. Can

we come up with some way to resolve this to everyone’s reasonable satisfaction? What do you allthink?’’

ProbingDe�nition

Inquires directly with a group member in order to understand the facts, reasons, assumptions, in-ferences, and possible consequences of a given suggestion or action. Commits to a nonjudgmentalconsideration of another’s views.Ask

What is the basis for another’s point of view and feelings?Can I explore with others even though their position may be different from my own?

BehaviorAsk about impressions and perceptions.Inquire about attributions of others’ behavior.Explore the consequences of an alternative.

Example‘‘Frank, you’ve said several times that you believe that the workers in your unit should take the ball

and run with it. Yet, you say they are dependent and continue to check with you on every newinitiative. Is there anything you might be doing or saying that might be blocking their sense of inde-pendence? Might you be unwittingly giving them the sense that you’ll be critical if they screw up?’’

w Instead of being self-absorbed, we convey humility.w Instead of feeling out of depth, we feel open to learn.w Instead of feeling out of context, we become open to experience.

Bell’s re�ective response suggests that, at times, we may engage our empathy with othersby viewing them and listening to them as we wish to be treated. At other times, we maywish to view others as ‘‘strange’’ (Isaacs, 1999), people so unlike ourselves that theyrequire even deeper respect and attention so that we may learn to know them. Usinglanguage from Buddhist insight meditation, being can also be referred to as mindfulness,which represents knowing what is arising in the moment without losing track of theknower. Gregory Kramer (1998), through the practice of ‘‘insight dialogue,’’ has exploredthe potential of maintaining a meditative state of being while engaged in relationship withothers. Developing the discipline of folding action and re�ection into one requires a gooddeal of skill and patience but can be learned, according to Kramer, using these guidelines:

w Commit to the process—We bring full presence to the group and commit not out ofobligation but out of wisdom and compassion, allowing us to connect with one an-other.

Volume 4, Number 1, REFLECTIONS

”ID

on’t

Hav

eTi

me

toTh

ink!

”ve

rsus

the

Art

ofRe

�ect

ive

Prac

tice

wRA

ELIN

72

w Trust emergence; have no goals—The universe of pos-sibilities is not limited by a precon�gured agenda.There is no goal but to rest in the moment from whichmight ensue an emotional and spiritual release or anintellectual breakthrough. These are natural results,not goals.

w Balance af�rmation and investigation—We practicedeep listening and maintain an attitude of inquiry. Weaf�rm, not from a separate, limited self, but from thecircle emerging within the group. We feel at ease withourselves, con�dent of the group’s ‘‘lovingkindness.’’

w Pause, re�ect, contemplate—We pause after hearinga statement, re�ect on what has been said, and con-template our feelings, the motivation for speaking,and the richness of the moment. By providing spacein interactions, we can begin to understand theirnature.

w Free up roles—In the group, there is no hierarchy. Weattempt to avoid the tendency to put people into pi-geon holes. An open-hearted acceptance of ourselvesand of others yields freedom and spontaneity to all.

w Seek out assumptions—We actively explore the moment, searching for assumptionsin our own thinking and in what others have said.

w Observe judgments—We allow judgments to rise to consciousness in order to gain awindow into our reactive nature and to open the possibility of a more even-handedway of being.

w Share parallel thinking—Parallel thoughts are those that arise in the background asother things are expressed. In the safety of the group, we bring these forth, be theyjudgments, feelings of inadequacy, or observations about the processes arising in thegroup.

Referring to the dimensions of the model, being itself occupies the dimension calledthe frame mode. Framing refers to how we think about a situation, more speci�cally, howwe select, name, and organize facts to tell a story to ourselves about what is going on andwhat to do in a particular situation. In the collective mode, we extend our contributionsand inquiry to all members of the community, whereas in the individual mode, we hearour own voice or address one individual at a time. The cross-dimensions are ‘‘stayingwith self’’ and ‘‘taking action toward others.’’ At times, we make personal contributionsto the group or focus attention on ourselves. At other times, we extend and dedicateattention to others.

Being, as a central skill, may entail staying with oneself or taking action towardothers. It is most concerned with exploring differences and diverse experiences apart frommembers’ preconceived notions. The being skill models an inquisitive, nonjudgmentalattitude toward group phenomena. Some of its components are: inviting questions andcomments, considering one’s own positions as hypotheses to be tested, acknowledgingexpressions of vulnerability by others. Consider this excerpt from a supervisor’s journalas an example of being:

Sam began to challenge our very purpose. He questioned not only why we needed to meet sooften, but once he got going, he seemed to be questioning why we even needed to meet atall! I had formed our team and felt a spontaneous urge to counter his negativity. But I caughtmyself and decided to pause and continue to listen instead. Perhaps it was good that Samwas getting his feelings out on the table. Any knee-jerk reaction by me would likely shut himdown. Maybe he had a few good points? At that moment, Linda and then Paul began to sharetheir vision for our task force, yet they did it displaying profound respect for Sam’s challenge.I found myself appreciating that Sam brought his objections to the team and said so. We be-gan to work on some of our de�ciencies as a group. I think it was our best meeting.

The second re�ective skill of speaking, at the upper left in �gure 2, seeks to articulatea collective voice from within ourselves. In speaking, we attempt to characterize the state

© Gene Beyt

REFLECTIONS, Volume 4, Number 1

”ID

on’t

Hav

eTi

me

toTh

ink!

”ve

rsus

the

Art

ofRe

�ect

ive

Prac

tice

wRA

ELIN

73

of the group or its meaning at a given time. It may entail summoning an image to articulatemeaning, suggesting group norms, or bringing out uncertainties or unfounded assump-tions. In speaking, it is not necessary to prepare words in advance. We craft our messagein the moment as the meaning unfolds. Consider an example from the world of symphonicmusic:

Michael Tilson Thomas, the famous and still relatively young American conductor,was observed, perhaps unwittingly, using the collective speaking skill when he served asguest conductor with the Chicago Symphony. Although the role of symphonic conductoris often interpreted as a directive practice in which members of the orchestra are askedto follow carefully the direction of the conductor, Thomas used a more collective approachin his rehearsal with the orchestra of Tchaikovsky’s Sixth. ‘‘Of course, they had playedthe Pathetique hundreds of times,’’ recounted Thomas. ‘‘[But] when we got to the secondtheme, instead of beating it note by note in the typical schoolmaster way, I raised myhands into the air and gently indicated a breathing space that would precede this phrase.At �rst they were baf�ed,’’ but I urged, ‘‘Let’s breathe together, hold the �rst note slightlylonger, and then let the melody gracefully fall away from it.’’ In explaining what happenednext, Thomas recalled, ‘‘I couldn’t make the music happen alone. We needed to sharethe feeling, we had to �nd that shape together, and we did. It was miraculous.’’2

In the third skill of disclosing, we stay within ourselves and, at the same time, shareour doubts or voice our passion. By disclosing, we may unveil feelings at a given momentbased on what has transpired, or we may present a story to reveal the depth of ourexperience. As people disclose more about themselves, the group learns more about itsmembership. Another cue to promote disclosing is to ask myself what I might say to helpthe group know me better. A story about George Washington reveals the power of dis-closing.

Unknown to all but the most astute historians, there was a substantial movementduring the waning years of the American Revolutionary War for the military to take overthe civilian government and install Washington as king. Atone historic point, Washington appeared before some ofthese military of�cers to condemn this affront to democ-racy, the cornerstone of the entire revolutionary move-ment. However, his speech was falling on deaf ears. Then,at one point, as he helplessly attempted to read a missivefrom a member of Congress, he paused to reach for a pairof glasses, something only his closest aides had known that he needed. Then he quietlyconfessed to his of�cers: ‘‘Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for Ihave not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.’’ The men wept.It was thought that his statement of vulnerability nipped this movement in the bud: Howcould the men ignore this sel�ess commander who reminded them that he was one ofthem?3

Testing, the fourth re�ective skill, is an open-ended query directed toward the groupas a whole that attempts to uncover new ways of thinking and behaving. When testing,we may ask the group to consider its own process or may attempt to explore underlyingassumptions previously taken for granted. In testing, we are trying to promote a processof collective inquiry. As a tester, we may occasionally ask for a process check or ask ifsomeone might act out a scenario to explore an option. Perhaps readers are familiar withthe ‘‘Abilene Paradox,’’ an interpersonal dynamic described by Jerry Harvey (1988). Har-vey coined the terms when pondering why he and some family members took an ex-hausting trip in a dust storm to Abilene, 53 miles away, when not one person in theirparty actually wanted to go there. Because we have an unfortunate tendency in everydaylife to communicate the very opposite of our wishes based on our assumptions of thedesires of others, the testing skill can become indispensable. We need to develop thecourage to inquire about our mutual desires and actions if we are to successfully manageagreement.

Finally, in probing, we make a direct inquiry, typically to one member at a time, to�nd out the facts, reasons, assumptions, inferences, and possible consequences of a givensuggestion or action. For example, probing might attempt to point out inconsistencies inmembers’ reasoning patterns, perhaps helping them to uncover the assumptions and

As people disclose more aboutthemselves, the group learns moreabout its membership.

Volume 4, Number 1, REFLECTIONS

”ID

on’t

Hav

eTi

me

toTh

ink!

”ve

rsus

the

Art

ofRe

�ect

ive

Prac

tice

wRA

ELIN

74

beliefs behind particular actions. When probing, however, we need to be careful not tointerrogate or make any member feel he or she has been put on the spot or on the defen-sive. On the other hand, probing may initially make some members uncomfortable if theyare asked to consider assumptions that had been hidden even from their own conscious-ness. As an example, consider a frank inquiry posed to a group member, Mark: ‘‘Mark,every time that I can recall when we’ve thought about broaching our plans with Lisa, youchime in saying that she is someone whom no one can work with and a person to beavoided at all costs. I wonder if you’ve had some experiences with her you can share thatwould help us, and perhaps you too, understand what seems to be making Lisa such anobstacle. Maybe there is a way that would make it possible for one of us to approachher.’’

So, how would Susan and Charlie from the initial vignette interact under re�ectivepractice conditions? Let’s see how the conversation might have changed. See if you candetect Susan’s interest in building a re�ective community and more speci�cally in her useof the being skill, followed by Charlie’s use of the disclosing and probing skills:

‘‘Susan, you’re next. As you know, we �gure the Cadlink merger is going ahead. They expecttheir Wentworth localization unit to be merged with your marketing group. What do youthink?’’

‘‘Charlie, thanks for giving me your con�dence. Frankly, I’m concerned. Even though I hadearlier been pretty vocal about my support of the merger and had told Jeff that I believed wecould assimilate Wentworth, I have new data suggesting that their work methods might notconverge with ours. We need to get them in the room, but I’m not sure how to broach thematter. You’ve had conversations with them before. What do you suggest?’’

‘‘Susan, I’m somewhat fearful that they might think we’re back-pedaling here, and myword is on the line. But I appreciate your frankness. By being up-front, I think I can showJeff why this matter is too important to rush. I also know their marketing VP. But before weapproach her and her group, let’s hear about the new data that you have. What operatingmethods of theirs do you anticipate to be problematic?’’

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Ed Schein for his generous comments on this article.

Notes1. I am grateful to David Hardy, of the Bank of Montreal, for demonstrating the concept of the

‘‘solution database.’’2. The Thomas account is from D. Schiff, ‘‘An Older, Wiser, Humbler Wunderkind.’’ New York

Times Magazine (August 20, 1995): 31.3. This story of Washington was described in O. Guinness, ed. Character Counts: Leadership Qual-

ities in Washington, Wilberforce, Lincoln, and Solzhenitsyn (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,1999): 37.

ReferencesBell, S. ‘‘Self-Re�ection and Vulnerability in Action Research: Bringing Forth New Worlds in our

Learning.’’ Systemic Practice and Action Research 11 (1998): 179–191.Castleberg, M. ‘‘Re�ective Note-Taking: A New Tool for Capturing Learning’’ unpublished draft

paper available on-line at http://forum.solonline.org to members of the Society for Organiza-tional Learning, 2001.

Haggerty, D.R. ‘‘Doing by Learning: How Re�ective Practice Builds Learning for Members of Work-Based Learning Teams’’ unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vermont, 2001.

Harvey, J.B. The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988).

Isaacs, W. Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together (New York: Doubleday, 1999).Kleiner, A. and G. Roth. ‘‘How to Make Experience Your Company’s Best Teacher.’’ HarvardBusiness

Review 75 (1997): 172–177.Kramer, G. ‘‘Meditating Together, Speaking from Silence: The Practice of Insight Dialogue’’ (Port-

land, OR: Metta Foundation, 1998).

REFLECTIONS, Volume 4, Number 1

”ID

on’t

Hav

eTi

me

toTh

ink!

”ve

rsus

the

Art

ofRe

�ect

ive

Prac

tice

wRA

ELIN

75

Raelin, J. Work-Based Learning: The New Frontier of Management Development (Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000).

Thomas, R.J. ‘‘Mergers & Acquisitions: Irreconcilable Differences.’’ Accenture’s Outlook Journal 1(2000): 28–35.

Commentary

by Phillip DiChiara

In the mid and late 1990s, abundant venture capital catalyzed the rapid growth of �edgling orga-nizations, many of which placed great emphasis on market share, virtuality, personal ful�llment,and overall staff satisfaction. Technology �rms in particular proudly provided space for recreationwith the hope of encouraging dialogue and teamwork. Many new ventures assumed that highlymotivated employees would view work as play, play as work, and professional ful�llment as essen-tial to their continued commitment to the often-entrepreneurial task at hand. The spoken intentwas to recruit the best talent at any cost, to provide a nurturing environment for innovation, andto create teams that would succeed.

In fact, there is evidence to suggest that ‘‘safe space,’’ physical or otherwise, for individual orgroup re�ection was often less a reality than an optimistic promise. Joseph Raelin’s article remindsme that, for many practitioners, the concept of re�ective practice is essentially unknown.

As Raelin notes, there are many reasons why re�ection should be brought out in the open,and there are strategies to encourage its use. Within the efforts of The Boston Consortium forHigher Education, a young collaborative focused on addressing the shared problems faced in theadministration of member colleges, we believe re�ective practice has been an essential part of oursuccess thus far.

As our groups evolve from informal meetings within a discipline, but across several differentschool organizations, community building is not left to chance. A clear sense of shared interest andvision is essential, and creates the fertile ground on which re�ective practice can be nurtured. En-couragement from senior staff may catalyze initial involvement , but few managers can afford, orwant, to spend time in meetings that do not provide a return on their investment of time. Addi-tionally, they value sessions that allow them to engage their peers in settings that are relaxed butclearly focused on how their collective knowledge can reduce workload or enhance the quality andsophistication of their respective operations.

Facilitating the correct balance between ‘‘getting down to business’’ and nurturing an environ-ment that permits re�ection is not easily accomplished. It is however, necessary, as too little ofeither will discourage further involvement in a newly formed group. It is modulated differentlyfrom group to group, within a group, and often within a topic. The skills of re�ective practice,detailed in the article, can be readily observed in sessions involving our more matured communitiesof practice.

The consortium initially employs a coordinator, who, with solid facilitation skills, assists agroup in discovering and sharing their common concerns. As dialogue leads to relationships, timefor re�ection is created by simple but effective tools such as collective review of previous meetingnotes or informal updates on the seemingly unrelated problems they have had to tackle in order tomove the effort ahead.

In some cases, casual dialogue before and after meetings involves sharing of often-humorousepisodes encountered in merely �nding the time to attend a group meeting. We suspect that thisis evidence that value is placed on attending the meeting. It would also appear to resonate withthe value we discover in stepping back and observing our activities, as conditioned as we may beto doing otherwise. Public re�ection in a trustful environment brings attention to the �urry ofactivity that often acts as a substitute for thoughtful analysis. An individual’s ability to observe hisor her approach apart from and outside of the traditional organizational setting is an importantbene�t of re�ective practice within consortia, and we believe, very much a part of the attraction ofparticipating in a community of practice.

Unfortunately, not all communities evolve at the same pace, and some, despite able assistance,do not achieve their full potential. What would appear to distinguish them is the degree to whichthe group becomes comfortable with observing itself and others. Groups that are hell-bent onachievement often meet their objective, but seem to cycle out of productive existence. Othergroups, frequently populated with two or more personalities that are biased toward inquiry, typi-

Phillip DiChiaraManaging DirectorThe Boston Consortium for HigherEducationdichiara@babson.edu

Volume 4, Number 1, REFLECTIONS

”ID

on’t

Hav

eTi

me

toTh

ink!

”ve

rsus

the

Art

ofRe

�ect

ive

Prac

tice

wRA

ELIN

76

cally �nd the ability to re-engage continuously. Is it that the relationships created have become sotrusting that the vulnerability often associated with re�ection is no longer a concern? We believethat is the case, but are not sure.

If communities of practice in collaborative environments tend to encourage re�ection, theninterorganizational communities of practice would appear to require it. There is rarely a clear lineof authority on joint projects. A compelling argument for project completion must be adopted andinternalized by all participants in order to achieve success. Absent facilitated re�ection, failure toappreciate the whole story and understand the unique perspective of several organizations will in-crease the likelihood of a failed effort. The creation of ‘‘safe space’’ becomes the critical element insuccessful consortia and the communities of practice they seek to produce. Without that space,re�ection is less likely to occur. Shared re�ection, even in modest quantities, is part of every suc-cessful effort within our consortium and often absent in those that do not meet our hopes andexpectations.

ReferencesDarling, M.J. and C.S. Parry. ‘‘After-Action Reviews: Linking Re�ection and Planning in Learning Practice.’’ Re-

�ections 3 (Winter 2001): 64–72.Wenger, E., R. McDermott, and W.M. Snyder. Cultivating Communities of Practice (Boston: Harvard Business

School Press, 2002).

Commentary

by Philip W. McArthur

As the title of Joseph Raelin’s article captures, re�ection in organizations, while so necessary forthe reasons he articulates, is often resisted because people think they don’t have time. What leadsus to think this? What are the implications for people who wish to foster more re�ection? As Rae-lin points out, we can think of re�ection as occurring in three distinct moments: (1) before we act,(2) after we act, and (3) in the heat of the moment. I would venture a guess that when peoplethink they don’t have time to re�ect, they are referring to the before- and after-action types ofre�ection. This puts a premium on understanding how to optimize re�ection in the heat of themoment, or what Donald Schon (1983) in his seminal book, The Re�ective Practitioner, calledre�ection-in-action.

Schon used the term re�ecting-in-action to describe the process professionals implement todevelop practical knowledge in unique, surprising, and puzzling situations. As Schon explained,much of professional knowledge is tacit. Expertise leads to a dilemma. The better you get at whatyou do, the less able you are to say what you know. You ‘‘just do it.’’ The process of re�ecting-in-action involves ‘‘turning thought back on action and the implicit knowing in the action’’ (Schon,1983), making your tacit knowledge explicit, re�ecting on your assumptions, so that you can enter-tain fundamentally new options.

Re�ection, in this sense, is not divorced from action. It is about applying learning to one’sperformance in the current situation. As Schon noted, we can think about what we are doing, evenas we are doing it, but this requires that we embrace uncertainty rather than see it as threateningor a sign of weakness. The barrier to re�ecting-in-action is not necessarily time, but our willingnessand ability to engage each other effectively in re�ecting on our thoughts, feelings, and actions.When Charlie says to Susan in the opening vignette, ‘‘Don’t you want to think more about it?’’Susan may understandably see this as a delaying tactic. When she responds, ‘‘I don’t have time,’’what she may really mean is, ‘‘I don’t �nd this conversation helpful.’’

I agree with Raelin that re�ective practice is powerful because it is public. But, to leveragethis power, there is a dilemma with which we must contend. As we engage in re�ection with oth-ers, there are usually two conversations going on simultaneously: a public one and a private one(Argyris and Schon, 1974). The private conversation is a function of our ability to observe bothothers and ourselves. Unfortunately, in dif�cult conversations, our internal observer can becomequite reactive. We think to ourselves, ‘‘What an idiot!’’ ‘‘How can he possibly believe that!’’ ‘‘I betternot rock the boat.’’ Our reactive observer is judgmental in ways that are not useful and leads us toprotect others and ourselves rather than promote learning. Yet, our judgments may be accurateand necessary for change. The solution to this dilemma is not to be nonjudgmental , but to beaware of our judgments and communicate them in ways that promote mutual learning.

Philip W. McArthurAction Designphil@actiondesign.com

REFLECTIONS, Volume 4, Number 1

”ID

on’t

Hav

eTi

me

toTh

ink!

”ve

rsus

the

Art

ofRe

�ect

ive

Prac

tice

wRA

ELIN

77

Table 1 Developing a re�ective observer

Reactive observer(from supervisor’s journal)

Re�ective observer(my examples of second-order re�ection)

‘‘Sam [is challenging] our very purpose. He [isquestioning] not only why we need to meet sooften. . . . He [seems] to be questioning whywe even [need] to meet at all!’’

‘‘What is it about Sam questioning this group thatI �nd dif�cult?’’

‘‘These are my interpretations. I need to test thempublicly. ’’

‘‘Perhaps it [is] good that Sam [is] getting hisfeelings out on the table. Any knee-jerk reac-tion by me would likely shut him down.’’

‘‘I understand Sam thinks we shouldn’t meet. I’mglad he’s raised this, but I don’t yet understandhis thinking. I need to ask.’’

‘‘I am assuming I would shut him down if I re-spond. If I just say he is wrong that won’t help. Ifhe doesn’t �nd my inquiry helpful I need to learnwhy not.’’

‘‘I think it was our best meeting ever.’’ ‘‘That is my assessment. Feeling good can be atrap. Did we miss any opportunities for learning?I need to check with others.’’

Given that our reactive observer does not disappear overnight (if ever), as we learn to re�ect-in-action in tough situations, we have to develop a re�ective observer that can help us make senseof and manage our reactive observer. What might this look like in action? Let me use as an exam-ple the supervisor’s journal entry from Raelin’s article (see table 1). In the left column, I haveplaced those comments of the supervisor that contain untested hypotheses and assumptions,which are characteristic of our ‘‘reactive observer.’’ We need to become aware of these reactions,and further re�ect on them, as we are acting. Examples of second-order re�ection are in the rightcolumn under the heading ‘‘re�ective observer.’’

In Raelin’s model of re�ective practice, his use of examples to illustrate the skills of re�ectivepractice at the level of what you would actually say or do is one of the article’s particularstrengths. I have done the same in the table. Having examples at this level allows us to re�ect onour causal reasoning and identify any gaps or inconsistencies in how our ideas might be put intopractice (Argyris, 1982).

Raelin’s model for re�ective practice is composed of �ve core skills: being, disclosing, speaking,testing, and probing. I agree that the framing skill he identi�es (being) underlies the effective useof the other four skills. What I �nd novel, but not yet convincing, is the idea that these skills applydistinctly to either the collective or the individual level.

Regarding the skills of testing and probing, in my practice, I don’t make a distinction betweenusing these skills at the individual or group levels. I apply them to both. Let me use Raelin’s exam-ple of probing to illustrate. Here is a statement made by one group member to another.

Mark, every time that I can recall when we’ve thought about broaching our plans with Lisa, you chime insaying that she is someone that no one can work with and a person to be avoided at all costs. I wonderif you’ve had some experiences with her you can share that would help us, and perhaps you too, under-stand what seems to be making Lisa such an obstacle. Maybe there is a way that would make it possiblefor one of us to approach her.

First, the use of words such as ‘‘chime in’’ could lead Mark to feel his concerns are beingdismissed (and suggest that the speaker has work to do on his frame of Mark). That aside, from myperspective, this comment would be more effective if it included more explicit testing. The �rstplace I would test with Mark is after I state my recall of his response to working with Lisa. I wouldask, ‘‘Do you see that differently?’’ or ‘‘What’s your recollection?’’ Second, when the speaker says,‘‘Maybe there is a way . . . for one of us to approach her,’’ this is, implicitly, suggesting a test. Itwould be a more explicit test if the speaker were to say, ‘‘I’d like to �gure out a way to test if it ispossible.’’

Regarding the skill of speaking, I do not understand what it means ‘‘to articulate a collectivevoice from within ourselves.’’ I understand in the example that the orchestra found the shape ofthe music together, and that Thomas, the conductor, could not make the music happen on his

Volume 4, Number 1, REFLECTIONS

”ID

on’t

Hav

eTi

me

toTh

ink!

”ve

rsus

the

Art

ofRe

�ect

ive

Prac

tice

wRA

ELIN

78

own. But, how did the orchestra do this without hearing their own ‘‘voices’’ in the process? Schonalso distinguished between re�ecting-in-action at the individual level, as when a baseball pitchermakes adjustments to his delivery, and at the collective level, as when jazz musicians improvise.But in Schon’s description of the collective music-making process, the individual continues to bevery present (1983: 56).

As the musicians feel the direction of the music that is developing out of their interwoven contributions,they make new sense of it and adjust their performance to the new sense they have made. They arere�ecting-in-action on the music they are collectively making and on their individual contributions to it,thinking what they are doing, and in the process, evolving their way of doing it.

In Schon’s example, the jazz musicians are hearing the collective voice and their own voices.There is no blurring of the boundary between the individual and the collective. A key challenge inre�ecting-in-action is being able to shift one’s focus �uidly between the action you observe ‘‘outthere’’ and your own internal experience and sense making. This is why it is important to combineproductive advocacy and inquiry (speaking, disclosing, probing, and testing) whether at the individ-ual or group level.

These distinctions aside, the �nal vignette between Susan and Charlie is a good illustration ofre�ecting-in-action. They are asking for help, making their thinking and concerns more explicit,asking questions that lead to more informed action, rather than indirect questions that appear todelay action. Notice that this conversation is longer than their �rst. But it is more helpful. Peoplegenerally invest their time where they think they will get the most return. ‘‘I don’t have time’’ mayreally mean ‘‘I don’t see the value,’’ or ‘‘You aren’t being helpful.’’ The key barrier to re�ection-in-action is not time but skill.

ReferencesArgyris, C. Reasoning, Learning, and Action: Individual and Organizational (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982).Argyris, C. and D.A. Schon. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

1974).Schon, D.A. The Re�ective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (New York: Basic Books, 1983).

Response

by Joseph A. Raelin

As I prepare to write my response to DiChiara’s and McArthur’s thoughtful commentaries, I amstruck that our journalistic practice with its artifact of objectiveness may itself miss the mark onfull re�ective practice since the three of us and our managing editor are hardly re�ecting togetherin action. But we are stepping back to ponder meaning and perhaps are likewise engaging ourreaders, who may in turn bring up some of these re�ections with others in their respective com-munities.

Two themes and one new thought emerge for me as I read both commentaries. The �rsttheme is the sheer need to expose one’s fragile self if re�ection is going to occur publicly at all. Itis hard enough just to ask others to slow down, let alone question self and others in front of theassembled. We need to ask each other how we can establish a climate for being in a world ofacting. Perhaps it ultimately boils down to an existential courage, as or Paul Tillich put it, ‘‘thecourage to accept oneself, in spite of being unacceptable’’ (Tillich, 1952).

The second theme that I derive from the commentaries is how critical it is that re�ectivepractice occur at all levels of experience. Phil McArthur is mostly concerned with the individual andteam levels of discourse. At the individual level, we need to make a discernible effort to understandour own assumptions and feelings (our ‘‘left-hand column’’) and how to communicate some ofthese constructively to others so as not to block productive personal and professional relationships.At the team level, we need to decide how to counter centrifugal forces that lead us to protect ouridentities rather than commit to one another. Using the speaking skill, for example, one doesn’tnecessarily ‘‘speak for the group,’’ as McArthur aptly questions, but seeks to express a collectivevoice that helps the team �nd meaning as a working and learning unit.

Phil DiChiara is more concerned with re�ective practice at the organizational and interorgani-zational levels of experience. Organizationally, our moments of re�ection can help us probe beyond

REFLECTIONS, Volume 4, Number 1

”ID

on’t

Hav

eTi

me

toTh

ink!

”ve

rsus

the

Art

ofRe

�ect

ive

Prac

tice

wRA

ELIN

79

the strategic imperative of ‘‘what business are we in,’’ to questions of ‘‘what we stand for.’’ Thevalue dimension suggested here applies as well to our stakeholder relationships as we seek collabo-rative opportunities that consider not just the economic bene�ts to be gained from other partiesbut our mutual sustainability. Indeed, in Work-Based Learning, I propose that critical consciousnessthrough public re�ection might begin to lead to a better world when we recognize the connectionbetween our individual problems and the social context within which they are embedded.

Finally, is there a link between re�ective practice and the attention of the Society for Organi-zational Learning on leadership and personal development? If we expect people with working tiesin our organizations to re�ect together, it may be counterproductive to send them away individu-ally to training programs. One alternative is to send them away together to the training. Another isto bring learning into the community itself. How do we do this? I have coincidentally worked withDiChiara and McArthur on this very issue. In an ongoing executive development program with Di-Chiara’s Boston Consortium for Higher Education, we have assembled a handful of administrativeexecutives from area colleges and universities. Although we started using a traditional format oflecture and discussion, we have since evolved into a re�ective learning team. There is now suf�-cient trust in this network group that at each session, members take turns disclosing to each othersome pivotal problems of leadership occurring in their respective work settings. The ensuing dia-logue is dedicated toward helping individuals make sense of their leadership interventions in lightof relevant academic and practice theories, but most particularly, in light of our profound respectof each other’s courage to be.

ReferenceTillich, P. The Courage to Be, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1952).

Commentary

by Edgar H. Schein

Raelin’s call for developing the skills of re�ection and �nding the time to re�ect is very timely aswe get more and more frantic in this complex world. When I say to companies that learning re-quires ‘‘slack’’ time, I get outraged responses that not only is there no slack time anymore, but evenif there were, the stakeholders would never approve of time being used unproductively . So how dowe ‘‘�nd’’ time in a world that claims there is no time to be found?

I would suggest that if we view time as a cultural invention rather than a physical abstrac-tion, we might discover that there are all kinds of time for personal re�ection if we choose to useit. The best example is ‘‘commuting time.’’ If we walk or take public transportation instead of driv-ing, we have untold hours per week to devote to re�ection. A second example is ‘‘walking the dog.’’This is an ideal time to think, either alone or with one’s signi�cant other. It is also an ideal time forre�ective conversation. A third example is ‘‘between events, meetings, and so on.’’ If I have to walk10 minutes from one building to another to get to the next meeting, I have 10 minutes to re�ecton what has just gone on and what is about to happen.

In a very provocative study, Marcie Tyre, former MIT professor, studied what we do when ex-ternal circumstances force a ‘‘time out.’’ For example, on the football �eld when a player is injuredand the doctor is out on the �eld, what do the other players do during this time out? When thepower goes off for a few minutes or hours, what do we do if we cannot continue our normalwork? Most of us do not smoke anymore, but maybe the ‘‘smoke break’’ should be brought back asan institution to provide 5 to 10 minutes of re�ection time out on the balcony. Instead of bringingour coffee back to the desk, what about taking a coffee break to walk around the block or to sitalone staring at the landscape and re�ecting?

The point is that slack time is a sociological de�nition, not an absolute category. What weneed to �nd are adequate excuses for re�ection that others will accept as legitimately �tting intoour busy lives. The absurdity of how we are driven by the norms of busyness is best exempli�ed inCambridge at the outdoor teashop on Brattle Street. Many people will not stop for a relaxing teaand pastry (and a bit of re�ection) because they may be seen as ‘‘wasting time’’ sitting at a cafe.Let’s begin by re�ecting on why we don’t re�ect more.

Edgar H. ScheinSloan Fellows Professor ofManagement EmeritusMIT Sloan School of Management